edition of the Greek classic-that Lucian appears to have found a different reading from the common, in the passage of Hesiod to which he refers : the poet giving ὡτε κλύοιμι τα τ' εσσομενα κ. τ. λ. and Gesner adds that the metre requires κλυοιμι. Here was a bit of learning which Mr. T. thought he found within his reach; and thus bedecks himself with it, to astonish his English readers. Lucian, it must be owned, has here allowed himself a legerdemain trick, by changing the xλ of Hesiod into xλtos, which gives rather a different meaning...However, to give him fair play, we will here insert the poet's own words, toy. lin. 30, et seq." τα And then he attempts to transcribe the same lines which Gesner had quoted; but unfortunately in the third line gives xhor' FOTOμEva, which, as Gesner has noticed, the verse would not admit. -Let us be allowed to remark—(though we feel how much out of place any thing of critical learning would be in reviewing such a work as the present)—that we think Lucian's text immediately leads to the emendation of Hesiod's. We would read ×λɛ01. See Hom. Od. v. 299. The words ενέπνευσαν αυδην seem to require this alteration. In another note, in the same page, Mr. T. favours the reader with the following display of his emendatorial sagacity: "Whoever heard,' exclaims here M. Du Soul, that Telephus was among the prophets? This word is therefore corrupt, or what other is to be put in its room might not prove so easy to divine.'— -(Sed quid reponendum sit, &c.)--If it were allowable, notwithstanding this, to guess (without, however, positively asserting that I have guessed it,) I would say that Lucian perhaps casually miswrote it himself, intending to write Telemus; or the transcriber, from inattention, or the rapidity of his pen, metamorphosed the less known Telemus into the better known Telephus." Then, after quoting a passage from the Odyssey, and from Ovid's Metam., he concludes "I should think, however, that we ought to adhere to the Homerican Telemus: since it is only to put in an " and μ for and ." E Ingenious critic! But, alas! all that is good in the note is stolen from the commentator following Solanus, on the passage: (t. viii. p. 491.) "Pro Tλɛpov Valkenarius ad Herod. &c. rescripsit Tnλeμor, assentiente Cl. Bel. de Ball. [Belin de Ballu.] De Telemo vid. præter Homer. in Od.-Ovid. Metam. xiii. v. 771." We here close the case for the prosecution; and close Mr. T.'s volumes: handing them up, however, to the Bench, with some passages marked for his Lordship's inspection. The Counsel for the Prisoner has thrown up his brief-the Jury have protested against the Judge's troubling them or himself with any charge or any summing up of evidence,-they have brought in their verdict, finding the prisoner Guilty on every count. The Judge flings the book from him with a frown, and pronounces the sentence of the Court That the Prisoner at the bar, falsely styling himself : LuCIAN OF SAMOSATA, from the Greek, by WILLIAM TOOKE," &c. &c. be twice publicly whipped through the pages of The Weekly Register, and then transported for life in vicum vendentem thus et odores-the Botany Bay of Literature. PLAIN TRUTHS: OR, A SPEECH WHICH MAY BE DELIVERED IN THE APPROACHING SESSION, BY ANY MEMBER WHO LIKES IT, ON A MOTION FOR GOING INTO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE UPON THE STATE OF IRELAND. Αισχρόν εστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναίοι, φενακίζειν ἑαυτους. [Published 1825.] A SPEECH, &c. SIR,-I rise to oppose the motion that this House should go into a Committee on the state of IRELAND. I oppose it, because I think it unfair to mock that unhappy country by holding out hopes, which we are not prepared to realize. If the disorders of Ireland could be healed by any measures, which the British Legislature is likely to adopt, I would gladly go into the Committee. But I am persuaded that they cannot: and thinking it important that the House should itself be undeceived, and cease to encourage delusive expectations, I beg leave to state, with all plainness, the grounds upon which I regard the case of IRELAND as at present hopeless. In offering my sentiments to the attention of the House, I feel that I am likely to displease all parties; because I cannot agree with the views of any. Yet I may, in some measure, also avail myself of the support of all; because, even those who have advanced opinions the most opposite to each other, appear to me to speak some important truths. There are certain topics, upon which honourable Members are accustomed to enlarge very eloquently, but which, I think, have nothing to do with the question that properly comes under the con sideration of this House; because they concern matters that come not within the limits of legislative interference. If the IRISH peasantry be oppressed by rack-rents, if they be in a state of squalid poverty and wretchedness, an overgrown population of ragged paupers, can we gravely think of passing an Act of Parliament for remedying these evils? an Act of Parliament for regulating the amount of rent which the landlord may demand, or the tenant pay? an Act of Parliament for prohibiting the use of potatoes as food, or the marriages of those who cannot afford to use wheaten bread? an Act of Parliament for preventing the peasant's pig from occupying the same hovel with his family?-No, Sir; there is no use in declaiming here upon such topics as these. They are either matters of private regulation; or evils which bring with them their own correction: or mere indications of a state of rude society. But as one honourable Member has insisted largely on the distresses of the IRISH peasantry, as at once the cause and palliation of their outrages, I cannot forbear making two brief remarks. The first is, that the persons most actively engaged in those deeds of outrage and plans of lawless combination, are notoriously-not the lowest and most distressed of the peasantry-but men who are comparatively in easy circumstances, and who might possess every comfort of life, if their habits were industrious and peaceful. My second remark is, that gentlemen of this country, who talk of the extreme wretchedness of the lower orders in Ireland, really do not know Ireland. They have, perhaps, made a six-weeks' tour in the country, and imagine that this has made them acquainted with it. They have observed the peasant living in a mud-built cabin, surrounded with smoke, and dirt, and naked children, and pigs, and poultry; and have concluded that he must be wretched, because they would be so in such circumstances. But let me tell such gentlemen, that these circumstances produce not the slightest discomfort to the object of their sympathy. And let me not be charged with speaking paradoxically, when I say— and I say it (upon a long and intimate acquaintance with the people)that, except when a rare failure of the potatoe-crop occasions real famine in the country, I do believe that the IRISH peasantry have more pleasurable enjoyment of existence than the ENGLISH; and that for one who has not a sufficiency of wholesome food in that island, scores die of starvation in this metropolis of the British empire. But I dismiss such questions, as really unconnected with the proper subject of our debate. And I have observed, that whatever other topics were introduced by the speakers who have preceded me, they appear all to agree in marking what is called the CATHOLIC QUESTION as of primary importance on the present occasion; that to this they all ultimately reverted, from whatever point their arguments set out; and that apart from this they seem aware that the state of IRELAND cannot be discussed. In this, sir, they are right. But, in other respects. I maintain that both the advocates and the opponents of the Catholic claims are equally wrong; the opponents in maintaining that these claims may safely be resisted; and the advocates in maintaining-not only that they may safely be conceded-but that the concession will satisfy the claimants, and tranquillize IRELAND. Sir, it will not; and in the nature of things i cannot. Yet do I agree with those who say, that the concession ought to be made. It ought to be made, in order to remove the stalking-horse of disaffection. It ought to be made, in order to detach from the ranks of the disaffected a few of the Popish nobility and gentry, who are safe subjects of the British Empire. It ought to be made, in order to expose the further objects of those, who are essentially hostile to British connexion. It ought to be made, even for the sake of vindicating the legislature from the imputation of absurd inconsistency; the inconsistency of granting to thousands of semi-barbarous peasants the right of electing Members of Parliament, and withholding from a few respectable gentlemen of the same faith the right of being eligible to a seat in Parliament. But it is idle to think, that any concessions which can be made, consistently with the existence of a Protestant Establishment in IRELAND, will satisfy the Popish aspirants, and tranquillize the country. No, sir; it is impossible and the expectation of it is founded in utter ignorance of the genius of Popery, and inattention indeed to the nature of man. It has for some time been fashionable to talk of the genius of Popery as considerably altered from what it was in former days. The encaged tiger is supposed to have thrown off its pristine ferocity, and to have become as gentle as a lamb. While I protest against the notion, let me not be misunderstood. I distinguish between the character of individuals professing the Romish faith, and the genius of the faith itself, particularly as maintained by its hierarchy. That there are individuals of that communion, as amiable as any Protestants in private life, and as safe and useful members of civil society, I gladly acknowledge. But they constitute not what is called THE CHURCH, to whose decrees even their private sentiments and wishes must bend. That CHURCH boasts of her immutability: and simple indeed are they who dispute the immutability which she claims, and who refuse to estimate what she is at this day by the undisputed records of what she has been in days of old. Well indeed does she know how to assume every variety of form and appearance, according to her varying occasions. For the thunders, in which she was once accustomed to speak, she can employ the feeble timid accents of helplessness. Concealing her snakes and her scourges, she can present herself in all the pitiable decrepitude of anility. But even then she only waits the fit moment for reassuming her proper form; for repelling the man who scorns or opposes her; and bursting on his confounded sight in all the terrors and expanding dimensions of the fury. Many were surprised lately at finding that the Popish priests revived their pretensions to miraculous powers. But every one who knew their system knew that these powers were reserved in petto. In these heretical countries, indeed, the exercise of them has been, Alecto torvam faciem et furialia membra for good reasons, very rare. But who has not heard of the annual liquefaction of the blood of St. JANUARIUS at Naples? though it has been so fashionable to forget all the lying legends of the Church of Rome, that many may not have heard of the flight of the Holy House from Judea to Loretto. Great certainly is the impudence of the Reverend and Right Reverend Knaves, who, in the nineteenth century, and in these countries, put forward their grossest claims upon the public credulity; but great also is their cunning. They seem to have rightly estimated the temper of the times. When Prince HOHENLOHE falls a praying to one of the innumerable gods or goddesses, with which they have peopled their heaven; and his confederates assure us, that on the invoked interference of St. JOHN NEPOMUSCENE, a miraculous cure has been effected;-the protestants of these countries,-instead of laughing at the imposture, and simply remarking the long-established character of the shop from which it issues,- gape with wonder at the prodigy, and proceed gravely to canvass its authenticity in pamphlets without number. And shall I be told that the men, who still practise these pious frauds for the good of the Church, would not still also consider every other means sanctified by that end?—that they would not still also, if they had the power, enforce submission to the Church's dictates even by the tortures of the inquisition, and impose her iron yoke (as formerly) upon the necks of kings? I may be told, that-however willing-they have not the power, and are not likely to recover it; that the world is now too enlightened, the rights of conscience too well understood. And I admit it to a certain degree; though I do think that the age boasts of much more light, and much more liberality, than it really possesses. But I aim at present only at asserting the unchangeable character of the Church of ROME, as it influences the wishes and the aims of her priesthood; the domination which they seek to establish over the consciences of men; and their ambitious aspirings after worldly power, in order to advance the interests of their ecclesiastical system. And knowing that such is the essential character of Popery, can I rationally expect tranquillity in Ireland, while there is a Protestant establishment and a Popish populace? No: there will, and must be, a continued struggle, on the one hand, to obtain Popish ascendancy, and, on the other, to maintain Protestant ascendancy;-a struggle, which in various forms must spread barbarism and distraction throughout the land; a struggle, in the course of which every advance of the Popish multitude in numbers, wealth, and political privilege, will be employed as a stepping-block to further elevation. I am old enough to remember the first relaxations of the penal ccde in Ireland, during the last reign. The Papists had long been patient sufferers, and were then humble petitioners for relief. They have since become loud claimants for privilege and power; and their claims have proceeded from one object to another, till they now avow, that they require a new modelling of the Established Church, and an admission of their professors to every office in the state most intimately connected with our Religious Establishment,-- even to |